FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 57(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 PARTIES : CLEAN & GLEAN LIMITED - AND - KRZYSZTOF KORNAS (REPRESENTED BY J.C. HOBAN & COMPANY) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Applicability of Contract Cleaning Employment Regulation Order (ERO).
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns whether the Contract Cleaning Industry Joint Labour Committee (City and County of Dublin) (JLC) and the Industry's ERO should apply to the worker who was employed from 1st March, 2006, to 9th April, 2010. The worker claims that he was employed in contract cleaning in a variety of apartment blocks and offices and that his duties included cleaning floors, vacuuming, sweeping parking and common areas and cleaning carpets, doors and windows. The Company, which employs 23 workers at present, maintains that it is not covered by the ERO. The Company supplied a list of its services (details supplied to the Court) and stated that all of its work comes from a property management company.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 25th June, 2010, in accordance with Section 57(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th October, 2010.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is a "contract cleaning " provider within the meaning of the ERO.
2. The worker received no written terms and conditions of employment. He should have been paid the minimum hourly rate provided in the ERO and properly paid for overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was originally set up as a carpet cleaning company, however, it is now involved in providing facilities support services to property management companies.
2. The worker did a variety of jobs, including some cleaning duties, but not those that are covered by the ERO or the JLC.
DECISION:
This matter came before the Court by way of an application by J.C. Hoban & Company Solicitors on behalf of Mr. Krzysztof Kornas, for a decision on whether the Contract Cleaning Industry Joint Labour Committee (City and County of Dublin) (JLC) operates as respect the applicant worker and as to whether certain Contract Cleaning Industry Employment Regulation Orders (ERO) apply to him. The application was made pursuant to Section 57(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1946.
The Contract Cleaning Industry JLC
The application was dated 24th June, 2010, and relates to the Contract Cleaning Industry (City and County of Dublin). The ERO defines its scope at Clause 1 as follows: -
“Workers to whom this Schedule applies
1. Workers employed in Contract Cleaning in the City and the County of Dublin who are engaged on any of the following duties, that is to say: -
- The cleaning of the interior of offices, shops, hospitals, factories, stores and other similar establishments
BUT EXCLUDING
(i) Workers affected by an Employment Agreement, that is “an agreement relating to the remuneration or the conditions of employment of workers of any class, type or group made between a trade union of workers and an employer or trade union of employers or made, at a meeting of a registered joint industrial council, between members of the council representative of employers.”
(ii) Workers to whom an Employment Regulation Order made as a result of proposals received from another Joint Labour Committee applies.
(iii) Workers engaged on exterior structural cleaning.
2. In this schedule “Contract Cleaning” means the cleaning of premises by companies engaged in whole or in part on the provisions of cleaning and janitorial services in establishments such as hospitals, offices, shops, factories, stores or similar establishments on a contract basis.Position of the parties
Mr. Krystian Boino on behalf of the J.C. Hoban & Company Solicitorsstated that the Applicant was employed in Contract Cleaning in the city of Dublin. His duties involved the cleaning of common areas of apartment blocks and offices and similar establishments.
The employer submitted that it did not come within the scope of the Contract Cleaning Industry JLC and its employees were not covered by the ERO. He stated that the Company was engaged in providing facilities support services to property management companies and includes the following services:
- Apartment block general maintenance
- Light bulb replacement service
- Care Taker Duties
- Ground maintenance
- Waste Management
- Repair work to car parks
- General Gardening Work
- Pest Control Services
- Graffiti removal
- Drain clearing service
- Painting
- Line marking and stencilling
- Floor preparation and coating service
- Janitorial and Hygiene Supplies
- Building clearouts and lock replacement services
- Restoration after flood and fire damage
- Clamping
The employer stated that the complainant was engaged as a Caretaker and was engaged on a number of Company's sites to maintain the common areas and car parking facilities. He stated that among his duties were some cleaning duties, replacement of light bulbs, maintenance of the grounds, dealing with waste, repair work to the car park, removal of graffiti, clearing of blocked drains and line marking and stencilling of the car park.
Findings of the Court
The Court has examined the written and oral submissions of both parties.
The Court is satisfied that the services provided by the employer in this case are not encompassed by the definition of a "Contract Cleaning" Company contained in the ERO. Furthermore, is it noteworthy that there is only one single rate of pay covered by the ERO, there is no separate rate of pay or occupational classification that relates to "Caretaker".
Decision
For all the foregoing reasons the Court is satisfied that the JLC to which this application relates does not operate in respect of the Applicant herein. The Court is further satisfied that ERO does not apply to the Applicant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th October, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.